1919. ] Bardic and Histl. Survey of Rajputana. 73 
very ludicrousness of the above account is a proof of the au- 
thenticity of the main information. It is easy enough to find 
in this story the pretext with which the chronicler tries to 
justify the action of the nobles in placing on the gaddi Satala 
instead of Jogo who was the legitimate heir. And in that case 
the pretext adduced is a very poor one indeed. But it may 
also be that Jogo, when offered the ik, disappointed the 
nobles with a foolish reply like that mentioned by the chronic- 
ler and that the nobles thinking him unfit to rule, elected 
Satala in his place.! The latter supposition is confirmed by an 
information concerning Jogd which we find in the Khyata of 
Mihanota Néna Si. In his Vata Mohilé ri, Néna Si states that 
Jodho, after defeating the Mohilas of Chapara and the 
Pathanas their allies, assigned the Mohilivati to his son, 
kavara Jogo, but as the latter was a simpleton and was unable 
to retain the land, his wife, a Jhali, asked Jodhé to recall him 
back and assign the Mohilavati to somebody else. Accordingly, 
Jodho recalled Jogd and assigned the Mohilavati to Vid6.? 
Evihently, Jogd was a man of weak intellect, if not thoroughly 
inept, and this is probably the reason why he was excluded 
from the succession, in spite of his right of birth, which he ap- 
parently had. 
It may be asked: was Satala the legitimate successor, 
after the exclusion of Jogs ? From the fact that his election 
was not contrasted nor opposed by any other claimant, at least 
so far as we know, it would seem that h s. Satala was 
involved, it is true, in a war with Vik6 shortly afterwards, but, 
though the real motives that led the two brothers to fight one 
another are not known, it seems that the aggressor was not Viko, 
Ravala of Jesalmer, and the Rava of Pugala, invaded Vik6o’s 
territory * “ Possibly, Viko after the death of Jodhd, to whom 
century 1600). Cfr. also C. 52, p. 29a, where a more detailed account is 
given. 
_.| From the evidence of the Chronicles it appears that at the time 
with which we are concerned, every case of succession to the gaddi had 
he seem rf) t or otherwise undesirable, and elect another, is 
clearly shown by the case related above. 
* aifeet UT yet Et usist G [efedt sei). adtaa st us 
STIS Fax sat A a stg (GE 2] ALN] ve are awe ower 
S FIC SA He FH argHle Bla | sar S weet ce ae |S F yest 
are aifeet [= ee sae Bat yea U wires fears wT (sic) BIT 
ate sts A farce wraa eit areci gat Sar Zaz HIT Sat 
fae Te TC BHC Tas & weet wre Far ay wet as F 
went MA SF ga S aT | SIH HAM (D.C., i, ii, 8, p. 23%.) 
8 See ‘* Progress Report etc.’’ for 1916, pp. 235-236. 
